the lessons learned, and a price too horrible to contemplate can still be avoided.

pport of the more

temporal interests that surround us all?

Judicial Immunity and a Self Protection Bias
Justice Marshalls Dissenting opinion, post, presents an eloquent argument that Congress, in
enacting Section 1983, did not intend to create any absolute immunity from civil liability for
government officials involved in the judicial process ... (post, 346347) Whatever the correctness
of his historical argument, I fear that this court has already crossed that bridge in Pierson v Ray,
386 US 547, and Imbler v Pachtman, 424 US 409.
I entirely agree with Justice Marshall, however, that the policies of section 1983 and of common
law witness immunity, as they apply to witnesses who are police officers, do not justify any
absolute immunity for perjurious testimony. I therefore dissent for the reasons stated in Part IV of
Justice Marshalls Opinion. (In Part IV, Justice Marshall argues that absolute police immunity for
perjury is not a compelling or even rational state policy.)
We, the People, must live with and under the policy decisions of our government, whether it be
the judicial, executive or legislative branch. But, whether right or wrong in some remote esoteric
sense we cannot understand, the Constitution entrusts such policymaking into the hands of the
Legislature. If the Judiciary is effectively to balance that policymaking power, it cannot do so
by legislation disguised as case law in usurpation of power reserved to Congress; it must
instead relinquish that illegitimate power back to the People, through the jury trial process.
Just as the majority policy made in Briscoe v Lahue has given us the likes of Mark Fuhrman to
police our streets and testify falsely with impunity, the judicial policy to coverup the
constitutional violations of Brothers of the Robe has created and maintains a good ol boy
network of Mark Fuhrmans within its own ranks.
The problem is that Mark Fuhrman is US. Judges Garcia, Wiggins, Canby and Schroeder are
US. To weed them out in a system that corrupts is to replace them with US, and then we
too will become corrupt in that system. The only solution is to fix the system. It is broken,
and it needs fixing desperately. [Emph. J4J]
The problem is unaccountability to those it injures in violation of Constitutional Rights. The
solution is accountability to those it injures in violation of Constitutional Rights. [Emph. J4J] The
idea of accountability to those you injure is that the injured party, through the process of
law seeking redress, polices the system. Immunity blocks that policing of their government
by the People. [Emph. J4J
It is written that the longest journey begins with but one step in the right direction. When, as
Brennan, Marshall and Blackmun found in 1982, we fear that the Court has already crossed that
bridge, if it is a bridge in the wrong direction and you cannot go back, then you must, at least, not
continue on to cross more bridges in the same wrong direction. All is not lost. The Nations future
can still be enriched by the lessons learned, and a price too horrible to contemplate can still be
avoided.
Each case of Judicial Immunity presents to each judge a moral decision:
Shall I obey my oath and support the Constitution? Or, shall I ignore my oath in
support of the more temporal interests that surround us all ?
The "RIGHT TO BE HEARD" is, a fundamental right, and THE VERY REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF COURTS" and
nowhere more critical than in the Family Law Court. Canon 3(B)(5) A judge must perform judicial duties impartially
and fairly". Therefore "a judge who impairs the fairness of the proceeding" also "Brings The Judiciary into Disrepute".
OnJudicialMisconductandDiscipline
WITHOUTMERIT:THEEMPTYPROMISEOFJUDICIALDISCIPLINE
http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/sassower_01a.htm
ElenaRuthSassower
Judicial independence is predicated on "good faith" decisionmaking.
It was never intended to include "badfaith" decisionmaking, where a
judge knowingly and deliberately disregards the facts and law of a case.
This is properly the subject of disciplinary review, irrespective of
whether it is correctable on appeal. And egregious error is also
misconduct, since its nature and/or magnitude presuppose that a judge
acted willfully, or that he is incompetent.
" How can you make any assessment of how judicial misconduct
mechanisms are working unless you reach out to the victims of
judicial misconduct who have used them? Elena Ruth Sassower
TheLongTermView,MassachusettsSchoolofLaw,Vol.4,No.1,1997,pp.9097.
Seeoriginalarticle["http://www.tulanelink.com/pdf/withoutmerit1997.pdf].
Themostseriousmisconductbyjudgesisthatwhichistheleastlikelytosubjectthemtodiscipline.Itisnot
whattheydointheirprivatelives,offthebench,butwhattheydoonthebenchinthecourseoflitigation.The
obvious image is the judge who runs his courtroom as if he owns it, who looks down from his elevated
benchandtreatslitigantsandtheirattorneysinanimperiousandabusivefashion.
" But even where a judge is, as he is supposed to be, patient and dignified in his demeanor, every court
appearance,justlikeeverywrittenmotion,involvesajudgerulingonaproceduralorsubstantiveaspectofa
case.Andtherearejudgeswho,whilepresentingaveneeroffairness,areintellectuallydishonest.Theymake
rulings and decisions which are not only agross abuse of discretion, but which knowingly and deliberately
disregard"clearandcontrollinglaw"andobliterate,distort,orfabricatethefactsintherecordtodoso."
Whywouldajudgebeintellectuallydishonest?Hemaybemotivatedbyundisclosedbiasduetopersonalor
political interest. Judicial selection processes are politicallycontrolled and closed, frequently giving us judges
whoarebetterconnectedthantheyarequalified.Andonceonthebench,thesejudgesrewardtheirfriends
and punish their enemies. Although ethical codes require judges to disclose facts bearing upon their
impartiality, they don't always do so. They sit on cases in which they have undisclosed relationships with
parties, their attorneys, or have interests in the outcome, and do so deliberately because they wish to
advantageeitheronesideoveranotherorsometimesthemselves.
IntellectualDishonesty
Everycasehasmanyfacts,anyofwhichmaybeinadvertently"misstated"injudicialdecisions.Butjudicial
misconductisnotaboutinnocent"misstatement"offacts,andcertainlynotaboutperipheralfacts.Itinvolves
a judge's knowing and deliberate misrepresentation of the material facts on which the case pivots. These
factsdeterminetheapplicablelaw.Iftheapplicablelawdoesn'tallowthejudgetodowhathewantstodo,
he's going to have to change the material facts so that the law doesn't apply. When judges don't want to
putthemselvesonrecordasdishonestlyrecitingfacts,theyjustrenderdecisionswithoutreasonsorfactual
findings.
The "RIGHT TO BE HEARD" is, a fundamental right, and THE VERY REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF COURTS" and
nowhere more critical than in the Family Law Court. Canon 3(B)(5) A judge must perform judicial duties impartially
and fairly". Therefore "a judge who impairs the fairness of the proceeding" also "Brings The Judiciary into Disrepute".
The prevalence of intellectually dishonest decisions is described by Northwestern Law Professor
Anthony D'Amato in "The Ultimate Injustice: When the Court Misstates the Facts". He shows how
judges at different levels of the state and federal systems manipulate facts and the law to make a
case turn out the way they want it to.
In a speech to federal judges, Hofstra Law Professor Monroe Freedman states: "Frankly, I have had
more than enough of judicial opinions that bear no relationship whatsoever to the cases that have been filed
and argued before the judges. I am talking about judicial opinions that falsify the facts of the cases
that have been argued, judicial opinions that make disingenuous use or omission of material
authorities, judicial opinions that cover up these things with nopublication and nocitation rules."
Afterward, when Professor Freedman sat down, a judge sitting next to him turned to him and said,
"Youdon'tknowthehalfofit."http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/freedman_box.htm
TheMythofRecusal
There'snexttonothingyoucandowhenyou'rebeforeadishonestjudge.He'snotgoingtorespondtoarecusal
motionwith"Hallelujah,you'veshownmethelight.I'llstepdown."Hisdishonestywillcarrythroughtothe
recusalmotion,which,whileassertinghiscompletefairnessandimpartiality,hewilldenyfromthebenchwith
nowrittendecisionor,ifbyawrittendecision,thenonestatingnoreasonsormisstatingthebasisforrecusal.
Andjustasmakingaformalrecusalmotionentailsexpense,asanymotiondoes,sodoestakinganinterimappeal,
whichmaynotbefeasible.
Ofcourse,there'saproblemevenbeforemakingarecusalmotion.Yourlawyermaynotwanttomakeone
becauseitmeanstakingonthejudgebyaccusinghimofbiasedconduct.Alawyer'sethicaldutyistozealously
representeachclient,butlawyershaveotherclientswhosecasesmaycomebeforethatjudge.Anditisnotjust
theirrelationshipwiththatjudgethattheywanttoprotect,butwithhisjudicialbrethren,whoarepartofthe
judge'scircleoffriendsandmaybequitedefensiveofhishonor,whichtheyseeasanextensionoftheirown.
TheChimeraofJudicialDiscipline
Eachofthe50statesandtheDistrictofColumbiahasacommission,committee,council,orreviewboard,whose
purposeistoaddresscomplaintsofjudicialmisconductbystatejudgeswithinitsjurisdiction.Thesedisciplinary
mechanismsfrequentlydismiss,outofhand,complaintsofonthebenchmisconduct,includingabusive
courtroombehaviorandfabricatedjudicialdecisions.Theydothisonthepretensethattheyhavenoauthority
toreview"meritsofmatterswithinajudge'sdiscretion,suchastherulingsanddecisioninaparticularcase,"
whichtheyassertcanonlybereviewedbyanappealtoanappellatecourt.
However,judicialindependenceispredicatedon"goodfaith"decisionmaking.Itwasneverintendedtoinclude
"badfaith"decisionmaking,whereajudgeknowinglyanddeliberatelydisregardsthefactsandlawofacase.
Thisisproperlythesubjectofdisciplinaryreview,irrespectiveofwhetheritiscorrectableonappeal.An
egregiouserrorisalsomisconduct,sinceitsnatureand/ormagnitudepresupposethatajudgeactedwilfully,or
thatheisincompetent.
Underthe1980Act,oneofthestatutorygroundsuponwhichaChiefJudgemaydismissajudicialmisconduct
complaintisifhefindsittobe"directlyrelatedtothemeritsofadecisionorproceduralruling."Althougha
complaintallegingbadfaith,biasedjudicialconductincludinglegallyinsupportableandfactuallydishonest
rulingsshouldnotbedismissedas"meritsrelated,"itinvariablyis.Addinginsulttoinjury,ChiefJudges
sometimestackontotheirdismissalordersanotherstatutorygroundfordismissal,"frivolousness."Intheirview,a
biasclaimsupportedonlybyerroneousrulingsanddecisions,nomatterhowegregious,is"frivolous."
The "RIGHT TO BE HEARD" is, a fundamental right, and THE VERY REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF COURTS" and
nowhere more critical than in the Family Law Court. Canon 3(B)(5) A judge must perform judicial duties impartially
and fairly". Therefore "a judge who impairs the fairness of the proceeding" also "Brings The Judiciary into Disrepute".
TheIllusoryRemedyofAppeal
Facedwithadishonestjudge,litigantsoftencaveinatthetriallevelandnevermakeittoappeal.It'stoo
emotionallyandfinanciallydrainingtocontinuebeforeabiasedanddishonestjudge.Thisisnottosaythat
justiceisobtainableonappeal.Evenwithareversal,theonusoftheappealisontheaggrievedlitigant,who,at
best,getswhathewasentitledtoattheoutset,onlyyearslaterandafterspendinguntoldamountsofmoneyon
legalfeesandcosts.Beyondthat,theappellatedecision,ifitevenidentifiesthe"error"asjudicialmisconduct,
willlikelyminimizeit.Notwithstandingtheirethicalduty,appellatejudgesrarely,ifever,takestepstoreferan
erranttrialjudgefordisciplinaryaction.
Andthis...iswheretheappellateprocess"works"!

Judge Scott Gordon

Who is JUDGE Glenda Veasey ???

http://chefnikkishaw.com/s/feat_nikkishaw.pdf
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have the same passions
as others... for power and the privilege of the corps... In truth, man is not made to be
trusted for life if secured against all liability to account. Thomas Jefferson
Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and the provisions of this Code.
The basic function of an independent, impartial, and honorable judiciary is to maintain the utmost integrity in
decisionmaking Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge
to this responsibility. Conversely, violations of this code diminish public confidence in the judiciary and thereby
do injury to the system of government under law. *** I WILL NEVER STIP TO UNELECTED FAKE JUDGES AGAIN ***
Canon 2(B) Use of the Prestige of Judicial Office
(2) A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in any manner, including any
oral or written communication, to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others.



















Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity
and independence of judges.... Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or
improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge
must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the
judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by other members of the community and should do so
freely and willingly. The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety
applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge
"The test for the appearance of impropriety is whether a person aware of the facts might reasonably
entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act with INTEGRITY, impartiality, and competence."

Integrity integrity. noun: the quality of being honest and fair

9/6/11 Attorney Astiazarian explains the creation of a 40% unreported chamber order



12/12/12 Glenda Veasey proclaims SO I MADE AN ORDER






















1) In re: Fini: "We join the courts in County of Lake [v. Antoni (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1102
[22 Cal.Rptr.2d 804]] and Estevez[v. Superior Court (Salley) (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 423 [27
Cal.Rptr.2d 470]] by holding in this case that the court in child support proceedings, to the
extent permitted by the child support statutes, must be permitted to exercise the broadest
possible discretion in order to achieve equity and fairness in those most sensitive and
emotional cases." (In re Marriage of Fini, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 1044.) However, when
orders are the products of unreported chambers conferences, there is no opportunity
for the court to exercise its discretion, (*1) because any discretion, under the current
statutory scheme, requires either a statement on the record or some kind of writing. In
essence, making an order in an unreported chambers conference deprives the parents
of their rights under section 4057, subdivision (b) to have the family court at least
consider whether the guideline result should be varied under the circumstances of
their particular case. (*2)
(*1) Abuse of Discretion NO DISCRETION
(*2) Deprivation of Due Process rights under the Color of Authority
2) Void judgment. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely
null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force
and effect whatever... A judgment is a "void judgment"(order) if the court that
rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, the parties, or acted in a
manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901. One
which has no legal force or effect, invalidity and may be asserted by any person
whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally.
Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092.
*** Judicial Notice *** 9/6/11 unreported chamber order is void as a matter of law

On 12/12/12 Glenda Veasey also states I MADE NO INCHAMBERS ORDERS

This isnt the
same story ..






















FRAUD ON THE COURT using Nunc Pro Tuncas statements to Appeal Proof the
obfuscated facts behind the unreported chamber order being entered as a
stipulation. This is abuse of power and intentional modification of the official court
record to prevent appeal. This act doesnt ensure justice or preserve the record for
appeal it obfuscates the record and is a criminal act of Obstruction of Justice
a) 18U.S.C. 1503 is defined by the "catchall provision: " Whoever . . . corruptly or by
threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences,
obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due
administration of justice, shall be guilty of an offense
b) 18 U.S. Code 1506 Theft or alteration of record or process. Whoever
feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or otherwise avoids any record,
writ, process, or other proceeding, in any court of the United States, whereby
any judgment is reversed, made void, or does not take effect; Shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Jurisdiction is surrendered as a matter of law faltering position about making the
inchambers support order proves knowledge of this fraud on the court and bars
any use of harmless error This is the lack of Integrity not honest and not fair
ITS NOT A VALID STIPULATION Submission of a document & dissomaster
constructed as directed using unsupported and figures and denying the rebuttal of
vigorously disputed facts needed to satisfy due process also fails legislative
requirements to be a valid stipulation Entry of the record nunc pro tunc
does not correct the defect because what the court did not do then.. cannot be done
now simply by use of these words; (Hill v. Hill, 105 N.C. App.
"Lack of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. The only proper
office of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct a mistake in the records; it cannot be
used to rewrite history." E.g., Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F.2d 321, 32526 (7th
Cir. 1992); United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238, 1240 (7th Cir. 1990); King v.
Ionization Int'l, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180, 1188 (7th Cir. 1987). And Central Laborer's Pension
and Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642, 644(7th cir. 1999).

with the figures she chose

12/12/12 Glenda Veasey proclaims her power, authority, control and decision when
stating: I Decided... SOME Support. AS OPPOSED TO NO SUPPORT AT ALL.


























12/12/12 Transcripts pg 15 Veaseys Confession this is not a STIPULATION.










1) Websterdictionary.org states: SOME ; (adj) 1) Consisting of a greater or less portion
or a larger amount, A part or a portion of a larger amount, Not much; a little;
moderate; as, the censure was to some extent just .
(www.websterdictionary.org/definition/some).
2) in child custody cases the statutory "best interests" test for determinations is,
it furthers the paramount goal: preserving the need for continuity and stability in
custody arrangements (Ca Fam 3011, 3040(b)). The guideline statute sets the
principles that courts must to follow applying the rules.
a. Both parents are mutually responsible to support their children. (Sept. 6
th
2011
=84%/16% custody + $0 for 3mo and $215 for Sept) = FAILED
b. Child support orders must ensure that children actually receive fair, timely, and
sufficient support, which reflects the states high standard of living and high
costs of raising children compared to other states. Must is a legislative directive &
removes discretion Glenda Veaseys statements are legal nonsense
3) By definition: SOME SUPPORT is a portion or part of the actual support. Public
Policy requires: that children actually receive fair, timely, and sufficient support.
some support meant as of January 2012 equaled $1147 total support over 7mo. and
over last 34mo the net support available to support my children is $65 per child, and
has caused the loss of our home and damaged family relationships. Glenda Veasey
by action and words had no intention of providing fair support but to give any number
that gave the children something. They didnt need something they needed and were
required to receive an amount to secure their stability in their existing environment.
Therefore this entire argument is a confession to legal ignorance, dereliction of duty,
abuse of discretion, failure to ensure rights and public policy.

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any
proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady,
888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated
that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that
he has received justice." My children, family, and I do not believe the word justice has any
relationship to any action in this case Stevie Wonder could see impartiality is nonexistent.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow
the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given
another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the
judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second
judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself.
No orders issued by a judge who has been disqualified by law are valid. It would appear that
they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.